The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an NDPS case against Harpreet Singh, holding that a co-accused’s statement to the police could not be used against him. Justice Manisha Batra also found that pointing out a place already known to the police was not a “discovery” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Background
The FIR was registered on 12 January 2021 at Police Station Kalanwali, Sirsa, under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. Police stopped a motorcycle carrying three youths and found 2,700 Tramadol tablets. One of them, also named Harpreet Singh, said the tablets were bought from the petitioner on credit. Two of the three were juveniles and were dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. The third has died, so proceedings against him abated.
The petitioner later made his own disclosure statement, got the place of sale pointed out and produced Rs.1,500. Charge was framed on 23 January 2024, and five of 18 witnesses have been examined.
The Court held that the co-accused’s statement was a confession made to police in custody, barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 30 did not help the State because there was no joint trial. On the pointing out of the place, the Court said:
“The place where the tablets were allegedly sold had already been demarcated by Harpreet Singh son of Manga Singh during the investigation conducted on 12.01.2021, as is evident from the challan (Annexure P-2) and the reply filed by the State. The petitioner pointing out the same place six months later did not bring to light anything which was not already known to the police.”
The Rs.1,500 was also held not to be a “fact discovered”. The Court relied on Karan Talwar, Surinder Kumar Khanna and Dipakbhai Patel, and said the stage of the case made no difference:
“The law laid down at both ends of the trial is consistent. A confession of a co-accused is not sufficient to frame a charge and it is not sufficient to convict either. When the very material on which the charge rests can never be translated into legal evidence, the framing of the charge does not improve its quality.”
Rejecting the State’s reliance on commercial quantity, the Court added:
“However, the quantity of contraband recovered from the co-accused cannot by itself make the petitioner answerable for it. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act govern the grant of bail and have no bearing on the question whether any admissible evidence exists against an accused. The gravity of an accusation cannot make up for the absence of legal evidence to support it.”
Finding that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the court’s process, the High Court allowed the petition. It quashed the FIR and all proceedings, including the charge framed on 23 January 2024, qua the petitioner, and discharged his bail and surety bonds.
Case Details
Case Title: Harpreet Singh v. State of Haryana
Case Number: CRM-M-47417-2025 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Manisha Batra
Decision Date: 14 October 2026
